|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 834 Records
-
2020 (6) TMI 695 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Disallowance of prior period expenses and foreign exchange fluctuation - disallowance of write off of earnest money deposit - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the claim of the assessee that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate its above claim considering the undisputed fact that all the documents were lost by the assessee in a major fire and procuring evidence to substantiate its claim therefore was a very difficult process.
We, therefore, consider it fit to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to procure all possible evidences to substantiate its aforestated claim of prior period expenses and foreign exchange fluctuation in assessment year 2011-12 and write off of earnest money deposit in assessment year 2012-13. We, therefore, restore the issue back to the AO to consider the issue afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Disallowance of depreciation on technical know- how - HELD THAT:- We are unable to fathom what the Revenue was attempting to do on the issue Revenue has not disputed the genuineness of the claim of expenses. It is not the Revenue’s case that the impugned expenses were bogus. What it has only done is that it has treated the R & D expenditure incurred by the assessee as revenue in nature as opposed to capital treated by the assessee. Accordingly, it has resulted in allowing the entire claim of the expenses incurred in the impugned year and disallowing the claim of depreciation on the opening value of WDV of the same. We do not find any justification in this exercise of the Revenue.
In all the past years the assessee has been consistently following this method of accounting and has also been allowed the same in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) for the preceding two years also - Revenue by this exercise has put the assessee at a loss when otherwise its claim of earlier years were allowable in entirety as per the Revenue itself in the year of incurring the expenditure only as against the assessee claiming only depreciation on the same. No justification or merit in this exercise of the Revenue and direct, therefore, that the entire expenses be treated as capital in nature and depreciation be allowed on the same. The addition made, therefore, on account of depreciation in both the years is directed to be deleted - Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (6) TMI 694 - ITAT DELHI
Addition on account of capital - gifts received from relatives - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has correctly accepted and found it correct regarding the amounts received as gifts from husband and from her father-in-law. CIT (A) confirmed the remaining amount owing to non-substantiation of the amounts received.
Addition of loan - HELD THAT:- AO had doubts in his mind about the genuineness of these creditors and therefore provided an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate her claim by producing the respective creditors. The process of confirmation by post was initiated only to facilitate the appellant but even this exercise has resulted in confirmation of credits in respect of the aforesaid four persons. Each credit appearing in the Books of Account has to be substantiated by the appellant with the help of cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, despite number of opportunities given to the appellant there has been no compliance.
The letters issued by the Assessing Officer has remained un-served or has not been responded by the respective creditors. In some cases, as mentioned above, even though the letters have been responded but the credit balance are different which would mean that the confirmations are not reliable. The appellant gets relief of ₹ 35,00,000/- in respect of the aforementioned four creditors out of the total credit amount of ₹ 1,07,00,000/- and the balance amount of ₹ 72,00,000/- is confirmed.
Addition of sundry creditors - HELD THAT:- Appellant failed to discharge initial onus' of proving genuineness of its sundry creditors. Even during enquiry by the AO and this office only three creditors confirmed balance. In consideration of the facts above, out of total addition of rupees ₹ 67,07,216/- on account of sundry creditors, the appellant gets a relief
Addition of commission paid owing to the absence of details of the persons to whom the commission has been paid - HELD THAT:- The appellant merely claimed that evidence has been lost in tire but at the same time she could have led secondary evidence by producing such parties and obtaining details from such parties about the payment of the said sum. The initial onus has not been discharged because by merely providing list no fruitful enquiry can be conducted until and unless further details are given. These agents were allegedly in fiduciary relationship with the appellant and it was much easier for her to obtain confirmation of accounts from the said agents. She has not taken any such steps and therefore prima facie genuineness of expenditure is in doubt. Further, the business purpose of the expense has also to be demonstrated besides the payment which is missing in this case because none of the agent has been examined by the appellant. Under these circumstances the AO has correctly disallowed the expense claimed
Disallowance of Advertisement expenses - HELD THAT:- We find from the record that the assessee has not produced any evidence to support the claim of expenditure. In the absence of any evidences or proof submitted by the assessee, these expenses cannot be allowed as utilized for the purpose of business. The order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed on this ground.
-
2020 (6) TMI 693 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Orders for release of securities - learned senior counsel sought intervention of this Tribunal to stay such orders as well as to allow the appellant to dispose of the securities worth ₹ 21.62 crores and thereafter releasing the remaining securities given by Respondent No. 2 to the appellant - HELD THAT:- We pass the following interim directions - The parties shall appear before NSE, either physically or through Video Conference, on June 24, 2020. NSE shall give the contact details and arrangements for the said meeting to the parties at least one day in advance.
(b) Based on the database of NSE and other parties rights in respect of the securities in question shall be reconciled/determined within one week thereafter.
(c) This Tribunal will hear the matter further on Friday, July 03, 2020. In the interim status quo shall be maintained by the parties i.e. there shall be no transfer of securities as directed in the impugned orders nor the appellant shall alienate any of the securities in question.
-
2020 (6) TMI 692 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - Infringement of the Copyright of successful bidder - defendant is a State owned company - plea of the defendant of fair dealing protected under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act is misconceived for the reason fair dealing is only applicable to private or personal use including research and does not apply to commercial activity - HELD THAT:- Sub-clause (b) of Clause 16 of the resolution plan thus clarifies that all consents, licenses, approvals, rights and entitlements, benefits, privileges whether under law, contract, lease or license granted in favour of the corporate debtor or to which the corporate debtor is entitled or accustomed to shall notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in their terms be deemed to continue without disruption for the benefit of the corporate debtor. Thus, the use of terms 'entitled or accustomed to' are of wide amplitude and ensure continuity of all benefits in favour of LHTPL to continue with the defendant - Sections 63 and 231 IBC create a bar on the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of any matter in which the NCLT and NCLAT has jurisdiction under the IBC and the adjudicating authority under the Code is competent to pass any order. Further, clause (c) sub-Section (5) of Section 60 IBC vests the jurisdiction in NCLT to entertain and dispose of any question of priorities or any question of law or fact, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution for liquidation proceedings. Therefore, the jurisdiction vested in NCLT while dealing with a resolution plan is of wide ambit and any question of law or fact in relation to the insolvency resolution has to be determined by the NCLT.
Though there is a dispute between the parties on the aspect that in the absence of any assignment or a license issued in favour of LTHPL by the plaintiff how the benefit of such a license issued in favour of LIL could extend to the LTHPL however, neither party has filed the terms of agreement between LIL and LTHPL to clarify this aspect. However, as noted above, plaintiff has stated in the plaint that LTHPL was a SPV of LIL and that the Teesta VI Project was awarded to LTHPL - as per the resolution plan, dispute of the entitlement to the licenses or the benefit/privilege under the contract or license to which the corporate debtor is entitled or accustomed notwithstanding any provision to the contrary is a provision of wide amplitude and the disputes raised between the party would fall in relation to this right if that accrues in favour of the defendant. Thus the dispute raised in the present suit falls within the ambit of Section 60 (5) IBC as the same arises out of and/or is in relation to the insolvency resolution plan of LTHPL hence has to be adjudicated by the NCLT and the proceedings in the civil court are barred.
The present suit would also be not maintainable in the absence of necessary parties LIL and LTHPL. It appears that LIL has deliberately not been made a party as the very impleadment of the LIL which has gone into liquidation would have ousted the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit. Even assuming that LTHPL had wrongly usurped or was infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in the drawings which is not the case of the plaintiff in the present suit, the defendant’s right to use cannot be decided in the present proceedings.
The present suit and application are dismissed as not maintainable before this Court in view of Sections 230 and 231 read with Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
-
2020 (6) TMI 691 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Oppression and Mismanagement - Sale of entire assets of the Respondent No. 1 Company sold illegally for the purpose other than the object of the Company - misuse of power of attorney granted unilaterally by Respondent No. 2 without notice - HELD THAT:- The Appellant is free to exercise her remedy under the Companies Act, 2013 when the Company law provides for "Oppression and Mismanagement" and hence imposition of costs needs review. It is also evident that the Appellant came to know about the Board Resolution dated 4-9-2014 for the first time when Respondent No. 3 has submitted its reply affidavit dated 8-3-2019 and at that juncture the Appellant wish to file a rejoinder affidavit but the NCLT refuse to allow her to do so and subsequently reserved the judgment. Since the Companies Act, 2013 provides for restrictions on powers of the Board to sell or dispose of the whole or substantially the whole of undertaking of the Company; Hence, the approval of shareholders through Extra-Ordinary General Meeting was required for selling the land being substantially the entire Assets of the Company.
It is very much evident that Members are free to file a petition/application if he or she is adversely affected or the interest of the Company is prejudicially affected, he or she is authorized to file petition/application under the Companies Act, 2013. The NCLT/NCLAT is the specialised agency to look into the impact on the members/company. Hence, there is a need to provide proper opportunity to the aggrieved members to present the genuiness or otherwise of the documents in relation to the provisions of Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013 - matter remanded for appropriate consideration by the NCLT, Chennai Bench.
-
2020 (6) TMI 690 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
CIRP Process - bank account of the Corporate Debtor was being used without prior approval of the IRP - HELD THAT:- The Directors acted wholly illegally once moratorium had been applied, in going ahead and withdrawing monies from the accounts at the back of IRP by even issuing cheques "Self". Such acts cannot be justified in any manner. The Appellant and Deepak Daga kept telling this Tribunal that they would return the money and in spite of undertaking given and time fixed, the money has not been returned and the CIRP process is seriously hampered. Consuming whole month stated in the Undertaking and without returning any money, we find no substance in the hollow statements in I.A. No. 1075 of 2020 - Application seeking time to comply with Undertakings. The I.A. wrongly states that undertakings given were without prejudice. They were voluntarily given. There are no bona fides in seeking time.
The Appellant and Deepak Daga since beginning were aware of nature of the acts they were committing in the illegal withdrawals. They disobeyed Orders of Adjudicating Authority and this Tribunal wilfully and there is wilful non-compliance of undertakings given. I.A. No. 1075 of 2020 to seek time to comply undertaking is not honest and appears to have been filed to create grounds of defence to further abuse process to kill time. The I.A. is rejected.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2020 (6) TMI 689 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Jurisdiction to pass order for re-bidding - Approval of Resolution Plan - section 31 of the I&B Code, 2016 - Whether the Adjudicating Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing order for re-bidding, despite the approval of the Resolution Plan by CoC, with a vote share of 84.70% of votes?
HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the Adjudicating Authority has overturned the decision of the CoC regarding approval of the Resolution Plan despite being approved by 84.70 percent of the vote share of the CoC, on the pretext of maximisation of value of the corporate debtor. The provisions investing jurisdiction and authority in the NCLT has not made the commercial decision exercised by the CoC of not approving the resolution plan or rejecting the same, justiciable. In the circumstances, it is clear that the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere with the commercial wisdom of CoC. The direction for rebidding for maximisation of the value of the corporate debtor also amounts to an interference in the business decision of the CoC, which is not permitted in law - the Adjudicating Authority is having limited power of judicial scrutiny under section 31, which has to remain within the four corners of Section 30(2) of the Code and the same cannot, in any circumstance, trespass upon the commercial wisdom of the CoC.
There is nothing on record to show that the RP manipulatively conducted the bidding process. It is also clear that the role of the Resolution Professional is only that of a facilitator. Evaluation matrix of the Resolution Plan also falls within the parameters of commercial wisdom of the CoC, which is non-justiciable - Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 688 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Admissibility of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The pendency of actions under the SARFAESI Act or actions under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 does not create obstruction for filling an Application under section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, specially in view of Section 238 of IBC. The Application is more to bring about a Resolution of Corporate Debtor than any penal action or any recovery proceedings.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 687 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH
Approval of Resolution Plan - section 30 (2) of the IBC read with Regulation 38 of the CIRP Regulations - HELD THAT:- The approved resolution plan is for the amount of ₹ 123.1 crore, payable to the secured financial creditors in compliance with the code within 30 days on which the resolution plan is approved by this adjudicating Authority which will be the date on which the corrected order is passed and the CIRP cost will be made out of the cash and bank balance of the corporate Debtor in priority to payment of other debts and against the total verified amount of ₹ 123.1 crore, the approved plan provides for the payment of entire amount upfront towards settlement of claims of all secured financial creditors and nothing towards the payment of unsecured related party financial creditors against the verified amount of 7.57 crore
The RP as required under regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 certified that the contents of the resolution plan meets with the requirements of the IBC and the regulations thereto and that the resolution plan has been approved by the CoC in the manner prescribed under the IBC - This bench directs the RP to act as the Monitoring Agency and thus appointed RP as "Monitoring Agency" to monitor and supervise the implementation of the Resolution plan and the remuneration of the monitoring agency shall be ₹ 1,50,000/- plus taxes and out of pocket expenses at actual.
The Resolution Applicant is allowed to remove and/or substitute the Monitoring Agency with prior approval of this Adjudicating Authority if the Monitoring Agency is unable to satisfactorily perform its responsibilities or breaches terms of its appointment.
-
2020 (6) TMI 686 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of Service Tax - Club or Association Service - business of time share -principles of mutuality - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that there is no requirement for the respondents to levy service tax on the petitioner, with respect to the services provided to its members - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 685 - SUPREME COURT
Interpretation of Statute - Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Levy of Purchase Tax - purchase turnover, with respect to the purchase of empty bottles from unregistered dealers under bought note - Clarifications dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 - HELD THAT:- For applicability of Section 7-A (1) of the Act, all the six ingredients need to be cumulatively satisfied. The ingredient (6) has three alternatives viz., the dealer has either (a) consumed or used the goods in question in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise, or (b) has disposed of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State, or (c) has despatched or carried them to a place outside the State except as a direct result of sale or purchase in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. It is not in dispute that clauses (b) or (c) of this ingredient are not attracted in this case, for the entire manufactured Beer/IMFL, after bottling, having been sold by the assessee only to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) within the State of Tamil Nadu.
There are no hesitation in concluding that the bottles in question have neither been consumed in manufacture of Beer/IMFL nor they could be said to have been used in such manufacture of Beer/IMFL. Hence, elements (i) and (iii) pertaining to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act do not exist in this case.
The purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Act is leviable on the purchase turnover of empty bottles purchased by the assessee in the course of its business of manufacture and sale of Beer and IMFL - the purchase turnover of the empty bottles purchased by the assessee from the unregistered dealers under bought note is exigible to purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act; and the assessee cannot escape such liability on the strength of the Clarifications/Circulars dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000 which do not stand in conformity with the statutory provision as also declaration of law by the Courts.
The appeal is partly allowed by holding that the purchase turnover of the empty bottles purchased by the assessee from the unregistered dealers under bought note is exigible to purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Act; and the assessee cannot escape such liability on the strength of the Clarifications/Circulars dated 09.11.1989 and 27.12.2000.
-
2020 (6) TMI 684 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - non-service of notice but assessment order served - suppression of sales turnover on the basis of electricity consumed during the assessment year in question - case of petitioner is that the respondent before making revised assessment, has not provided reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to furnish the books of accounts maintained for the relevant year - HELD THAT:- It is also an undisputed fact that the respondent, while passing the revised assessment order, has not verified the books of accounts maintained by the petitioner for the relevant year - It is well settled that the electricity consumption cannot be adopted as the sole basis for rejecting the accounts of the assessee and for making an estimate of the taxable turnover of the assessee.
The matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration. Though it is stated that the petitioner already filed a detailed objections on 23.01.2013, it is open to them to file their objections afresh, along with the required documents viz., books of accounts maintained by them, etc., within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (6) TMI 683 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of VAT - certain defects and estimated visible loss and invisible loss - reversal of ITC for exempted sales - HELD THAT:- Since the refund order is relating to the assessment year 2011-12, the second respondent shall decide the issue afresh, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner clearly setting out the circumstances under which they propose to revise or call upon the petitioner to reverse refund sanctioned and after receiving their objection. Such notice be issued by the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such notice, the petitioner shall submit their objections along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
The second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks therefrom - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (6) TMI 682 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reversal of ITC - alleged invisible loss - validity of circular dated 20.10.2011 - HELD THAT:- Since the notice issued is relating to the assessment year 2012-13, the second respondent / Assessing Officer shall decide the issue afresh, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner clearly setting out the circumstances under which they propose to revise or call upon the petitioner to reverse refund sanctioned and after receiving their objections. Such notice be issued by the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks therefrom.
-
2020 (6) TMI 681 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of VAT - 4% on the invisible loss at 5% of yarn purchase and on the sales of cutting waste and rejected export garments at 0.5% - HELD THAT:- Since the assessment orders are relating to the years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the respondent / Assessing Officer shall decide the issue afresh, after issuing show cause notices to the petitioner clearly setting out the circumstances under which they propose to revise or call upon the petitioner to reverse refund sanctioned and after receiving their objections. Such notices be issued by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such notices, the petitioner shall submit their objections along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 680 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of Fundamental Rights - delay of 43 days by the Detaining Authority in deciding the representation of the petitioner - petitioner is in custody since 11th October, 2019 - detenues challenged the Detention Order on the ground that the Detaining Authority ought to have considered the representation without waiting for the report of the Central Advisory Board and delay in consideration of the representation violated the rights of the detenues guaranteed by the Constitution - COFEPOSA Act.
HELD THAT:- There is no valid explanation for non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation from 06th November, 2019 to 18th December, 2019. There is no merit in the respondents’ explanation that they were waiting for the report of the Central Advisory Board - The delay on the part of the Detaining Authority to consider the petitioner’s representation violated his constitutional rights.
The issue is decided in the case of ANKIT ASHOK JALAN VERSUS UNION OF IDNIA AND ORS. [2020 (3) TMI 248 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Once the detention order has been made by any of the authorities competent to detain in terms of Section 3 (1) of the COFEPOSA Act, the representation to seek revocation of the detention order can be considered and decided by the Detaining Authority dehors the decision of the Advisory Board and the acceptance of recommendation by the appropriate Government.
The Detention Order dated 21st February, 2018 is hereby quashed and the detenue is directed to set at liberty forthwith - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 679 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while making observations in respect of enhancement of the compensation, forgot to see that there was no order of compensation at all by the learned Magistrate which could be enhanced. The enhancement presupposes awarding of some amount as compensation. In fact, there ought to have been, in such circumstance, a discussion as to whether awarding of compensation is necessary or not, as compensation can be awarded under Section 357(1) or 357(3) of Cr.P.C. If the compensation is to be should be from the fine amount and if it is to be in view of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., then fine should not be part of sentence. Further, the entire provision of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and, therefore, there ought to have been an endeavour in the judgment to state as to why the sentence is inadequate. The scope of the revision petition has been then restricted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for enhancement of compensation only as it appears. Therefore, it will have to be stated that there was no proper application of mind by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and all the requisite factors, which are required to be considered to see whether the sentence that has been awarded is adequate or not, have not been considered at all.
Petition and revision partly allowed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 678 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, MAHARASHTRA
Determination of value of second hand goods - Applicability of Rule 32(5) of CGST Rules,2017 - sale of Paintings bought from individual collectors and connoisseur - Antique jewellery, watches and books - Collectibles and Memorabilia - interpretation of statute - scope of phrase 'where no input tax credit has been availed on the purchase of such goods' - challenge to AAR decision - HELD THAT:- The only conclusion we can draw from the order of the AAR is that they seem to have been swayed by the fact that antique watches, painting and jewelry are valuable products which cannot be classified in the category of ‘second-hand or used’. Also the fact that there is a separate tariff heading for ‘Antiques’ in the form of tariff heading code 97060000 covering ‘Antiques exceeding 100 years’ seems to have influenced them. However, we wish to point out that the classification of the goods does not have anything to do with the application of rule 32 (5).
The question of whether the rule will apply has to be decided independently of the fitment of the product. There is nothing in rule 32 (5) which says that it is not applicable to valuable or precious objects or objects having antique value. It is a settled principle of jurisprudence that when the words of a statute are unambiguous and only one reasonable meaning can be given to it, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning. Such words have to be interpreted in their natural and ordinary sense. Therefore, the term ‘second-hand and used’ has to be given its ordinary meaning and nothing more is to be attributed to it especially when the legislature has not chosen to expand or contract its meaning. Antique pieces are also second-hand and used by people before they come in the market. The paintings are bought by the appellant from individual art collectors. It presupposes that the art collectors have bought it second-hand or used and then sold it to the appellant. It would be an entirely different thing if the appellant has bought the paintings from the artists themselves. However, this is not the fact before us and we go entirely by the submissions of the appellant that they have bought it from individual art collectors. If such is the case, then there are no grounds to say that they are not second-hand or used. All the categories- valuable paintings, antique watches, antique jewelry, though falling under the category of valuable goods, are at the same time also ‘second hand or used goods’ and therefore they cannot be denied the benefit of rule 32(5). We feel that the term ‘antique books’ is evocative enough to describe what it contains and the appellant can apply Rule 32(E) to it.
The AAR has not given any ruling on collectibles/memorabilia and collectible books; the reason being given is that no specific details of such goods are given. In the grounds of appeal presented before the AAR, the appellant has described such goods as only ‘collectibles’ and ‘memorabilia and collectibles’. They have not dwelt at length as to what commodities are covered in that category. The appellant has stated that ‘collectibles and memorabilia’ encompasses clothing, support equipment, spectacles, accessories etc. The above description is of general nature. The appellant has not given any further description as to whether they are bought from individual art collectors or not. Also, the appellant has asked for separate ruling on collectible books and antique books. It is not known whether they are same or not. Also no specific explanation is given as to what is the difference between collectible books and antique books.
The ruling of AAR has to be upheld.
-
2020 (6) TMI 677 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - evasion of tax - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the gravity of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of the applicant and there being no possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case - In the event of arrest of the applicant Shahzad Alam involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report if any under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, with conditions imposed.
-
2020 (6) TMI 676 - NATIONAL ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
Profiteering - Frozen Green Peas - allegation that the Respondent had not reduced the selling price of the “Frozen Green Peas”, when the GST rate was reduced - penalty - HELD THAT:- The profiteering amount is determined as ₹ 2,33,515/- as per the provisions of Rule 133 (1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 as per Annexure-12 of the Report. The Respondent is therefore directed to reduce the prices of the above products as per the provisions of Rule 133 (3) (a) of the CGST Rules, 2017, keeping in view the reduction in the rate of tax so that the benefit is passed on to the recipients. The Respondent is also directed to deposit the profiteered amount of ₹ 2,33,515/- along with the interest to be calculated at 18% from the date when the above amount was collected by him from the recipients till the above amount is deposited. Since the recipients, in this case, are not identifiable, the Respondent is directed to deposit the amount of profiteering of ₹ 2,33,515/- as per Table-B, mentioned above and Annexure-12 of the DGAP's Report dated 23.12.2019, in terms of Rule 133 (3) (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, along with 18% interest in the Central and the State Consumer Welfare Funds of State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The above amount shall be deposited within a period of 3 months from the date of this order failing which the same shall be recovered by the concerned Commissioner CGST/SGST as per the provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has denied the benefit of reduction in the tax rate to his buyers in contravention of the provisions of Section 171 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and has thus resorted to profiteering. Hence, he has committed an offence under section 171 (3A) of the CGST Act, 2017, and therefore, he is liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of the above Section. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice be issued to him directing him to explain why the penalty prescribed under Section 171 (3A) of the above Act read with Rule 133 (3) (d) of the CGST Rules, 2017 should not be imposed on him.
............
|
